US v. LaJoel Rouse

Filing 920091027

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7398

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAJOEL T. ROUSE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:05-cr-01173-GRA-1; 6:08-cv-70062-GRA)

Submitted:

October 20, 2009

Decided:

October 27, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

NIEMEYER,

Circuit

Judge,

and

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

LaJoel T. Rouse, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: LaJoel T. Rouse seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motions for reconsideration on his 28 are a regarding the

district (West unless

court's

denial of motion. justice

relief These or

U.S.C.A. not

§ 2255

Supp. a

2009)

orders issues

appealable of

circuit

judge

certificate

appealability. 369 F.3d 363,

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating

that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rouse has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. DISMISSED 2